Controlled‐Release Oxycodone and Naloxone in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Placebo‐Controlled, Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For Canadian regulatory purposes, an analgesic study was required to complement previously completed, pivotal studies on bowel effects and analgesia associated with controlled-release (CR) oxycodone⁄CR naloxone. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone versus placebo in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients requiring opioid therapy underwent a two- to seven-day opioid washout before being randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg⁄5 mg CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone or placebo every 12 h, titrated weekly according to efficacy and tolerability to 20 mg⁄10 mg, 30 mg⁄15 mg or 40 mg⁄20 mg every 12 h. After four weeks, patients crossed over to the alternative treatment for an additional four weeks. Acetaminophen⁄codeine (300 mg⁄30 mg every 4 h to 6 h as needed) was provided as rescue medication. RESULTS: Of the 83 randomized patients, 54 (65%) comprised the per-protocol population. According to per-protocol analysis, CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone resulted in significantly lower mean (± SD)pain scores measured on a visual analogue scale (48.6 ± 23.1 mm versus 55.9 ± 25.4 mm; P=0.0296) and five-point ordinal pain intensity scores (2.1 ± 0.8 versus 2.4 ± 0.9; P=0.0415) compared with placebo. After the double-blinded phase, patients and investigators both preferred CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone over placebo. These outcomes continued in the 79% of patients who chose to continue receiving CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone in a six-month, open-label evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: In patients complying with treatment as per protocol, CR oxycodone⁄CR naloxone was effective for the management of chronic low back pain of moderate or severe intensity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".